Science fights for hearts and minds

THE real problem which biotechnology companies face in the EU is not the unclear procedures they have to follow to win permission to sell the genetically modified crops they produce. It is the fact that very few Europeans seem to want to buy them.

While the 'big three' EU institutions - the European Commission, Council of Ministers and European Parliament - have spent the past 18 months trying to work out how best to update the 1990 directive (90/220) which sets out the rules for approving new strains of crops and seeds containing genetically modified organisms, ordinary Europeans have been gripped by anti-GMO fever.

The most recent backlash against GM foods has been in the UK. There was a public outcry last month when it emerged that Dr Arpad Pusztai, a scientist working at Scotland's Rowett Research Institute, had found evidence that certain elements in a strain of GM potato had adverse effects on laboratory rats.

The institute subsequently suspended Pusztai and distanced itself from his claims, arguing that the findings had been taken out of context. But this were somewhat undermined when a panel of 20 international scientific experts said they believed Pusztai's data to be sound.

In a bid to calm the rising panic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped into the fray. He argued that the UK's rules on approving GM foods were watertight and insisted that he personally would have no problem eating genetically modified products which had passed the necessary safety tests.

But Blair's efforts to pour oil on troubled waters appear to have done little to allay public concern. A MORI poll carried out the end of last month showed that 60% of Britons were unhappy with the way the UK government had handled the issue.

Hostility towards GM foods in the UK has been fuelled still further by a recent court case involving two companies specialising in the production of GM crops: US multinational Monsanto and UK-based Perryfields. They were fined a total of h45,058 for failing to protect the environment surrounding fields where genetically modified oilseed rape was being tested last summer.

The UK's health and safety executive, which brought the case, argued that the two firms had not done enough to ensure that pollen from the GM crops - which had been modified to resist herbicides - did not fertilise wild rape varieties which could have developed into 'super weeds'.

The biotechnology industry has consistently argued that there is absolutely no scientific proof to support the current fears about GM produce, and insists that the crops and seed it places on the market are perfectly safe.

Monsanto even went to the trouble of launching an EU-wide newspaper campaign last year in a bid to convince potential customers that they had nothing to fear from GMOs.

But try as it might, the industry just does not seem to be able to get its message across.

The past year or so has seen protests against genetically modified foods in the majority of EU member states.

France, initially one of the Union's most pro-GMO countries, made what amounted to a policy

U-turn last year, when Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's government announced in the summer that it would be suspending all authorisations for plantings of GM oilseed rape until further scientific studies had been carried out into cross-

pollination. Then, in September, as a result of a case brought

by environmental campaign group Greenpeace, the country's highest constitutional court - the Conseil d'Etat - overturned authorisation for two strains of GM maize produced by Swiss biotech firm Novartis.

The Conseil subsequently referred the case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for further clarification and the ban on Novartis' products will remain in place until the EU's top judges have ruled on the issue. Most insiders predict that the company will have to wait for between one and two years for a ruling.

Meanwhile, Austria and Luxembourg have had unilateral bans in place on the sale and cultivation of crops containing GMOs for almost two years.

The duo introduced the measures by invoking emergency EU rules which allow member states to take unilateral action to protect public health. But they

were only supposed to keep the embargoes in place for a

maximum of three months and the Commission has warned repeatedly that Vienna and Luxembourg are in breach of Union law. It has called on other EU governments to reprimand the two 'rogue' member states, but so far no action has been taken.

Italy introduced a GMO ban at the same time as Austria and Luxembourg but subsequently withdrew it; Denmark and Greece have limited restrictions in place on the cultivation of GM produce; and the German environment agency announced at the end of last month that it would begin monitoring

the long-term effects on the environment of GM crops.

Citing this widespread mistrust of genetically modified products, many environmental campaigners have called for a temporary EU-wide ban on GMOs to be introduced.

They argue this would allow the EU institutions time to reach agreement on their plans to modify the 90/220 directive and provide a breathing space in which the issues raised by the new plant varieties could be discussed and debated thoroughly in a calmer atmosphere.

However, this option was firmly rejected by the Union's environment ministers when they discussed the issue last December.

The arguments against a ban are two-fold. First, EU rules on the approval and marketing of GMOs already exist in the original version of the 90/220 directive. If a ban were introduced, biotechnology companies would be able to argue that the embargo was in breach of EU law and could almost certainly get it overturned by the ECJ.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, there is the question of international trade. At present, the vast majority of GM products used in the EU are imported from the US. This is particularly true for GM soya, which is used in 60-70% of all processed foods, but it is also the case for certain strains of genetically modified maize which are fed to cattle.

If the Union did decide to introduce a moratorium on GM produce, Washington would almost certainly lodge a formal complaint with the World Trade Organisation, launching dispute proceedings which, in the words of one EU diplomat, "would make the current dispute over bananas look like a storm in a teacup".

So when it comes to the legal arguments, the biotechnology industry in Europe is in quite a strong position, even though the debate over revising 90/220 is proving to be a tortuous one.

The sector's problems really lie in the hearts and minds of European citizens: their potential customers. Despite the fact that biotechnology companies, and many of the Union's leading politicians, have produced reams of evidence to support their hypothesis that GM foods are perfectly safe, the average European in the street is simply not convinced.

It seems that in the wake of the BSE crisis over beef, people just do not trust science any more.